G.R. No. 243897 , June 08, 2020
People of the Philippines, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Raquel Austria Naciongayo, Accused-Appellant.

FACTS

The accused-appellant, Raquel Austria Naciongayo, was the City Government Department Head II and Head of the City Environment and Natural Resources Office (CENRO) of Pasig City. She was charged with violating Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). The Information alleged that on January 5, 2006, or thereabouts, in her official capacity, she procured the services of Enviserve, Inc. to conduct an environmental congress and capacity building training for Environment Protection Officers without the required competitive public bidding under R.A. 9184. This enabled Enviserve to collect registration fees from participants (P1,700 in 2006 and P2,000 in 2007). Furthermore, she required a certificate of participation from this congress as a requisite for securing an Environmental Permit and renewal of a Business Permit to Operate, thereby giving unwarranted benefit to Enviserve. The prosecution alleged she acted with manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence, noting her close ties to Enviserve: she ordered a staff member to register its articles of incorporation (the company was incorporated only in November 2006, after the contract was perfected), her father was a speaker at the events, her sister was an incorporator, and she was listed as the company’s contact person with the SEC. The defense claimed she acted in good faith, collaborating with Enviserve as it was the only entity that offered to conduct the seminar at no cost to the city government, which had no budget for such activities.

ISSUE

Whether or not accused-appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 3(e) of R.A. 3019.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the Sandiganbayan’s ruling and found the accused-appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt. All elements of the crime were proven:
1. She was a public officer discharging official functions as Head of Pasig CENRO.
2. She acted with manifest partiality and evident bad faith. She procured Enviserve’s services without competitive bidding, despite knowing it lacked legal personality (not yet incorporated at contract perfection), and due to her close personal ties to the company (facilitating its registration, familial connections, and being its listed contact person).
3. Her actions gave unwarranted benefits, advantage, or preference to Enviserve. By bypassing mandatory competitive bidding under R.A. 9184, she gave Enviserve the exclusive opportunity to conduct the training and collect fees from participants, which constituted a consultancy service requiring public bidding. The Court rejected her defense that bidding was unnecessary because there was no cost to the government, ruling that the transaction fell under “consulting services” as defined by R.A. 9184 and its IRR, specifically as a “design and execution of training program.” None of the recognized exceptions to public bidding applied.
The Court sustained the penalty imposed by the Sandiganbayan: imprisonment for an indeterminate period of one (1) year and one (1) month, as minimum, to three (3) years, as maximum, with perpetual disqualification from public office.